Aims of the study

The primary aim was to evaluate how effective systematic desensitisation is as a treatment for aerophobia, which is the fear of flying.

Participants and research method

Participants

Participants were 41 volunteers who self-reported a fear of flying. They were divided into two groups using random allocation to ensure fairness and reduce bias:

• Treatment group - 20 participants who received systematic desensitisation therapy.
• Control group - 21 participants who received no therapy.

The groups were balanced for key variables, including sex, age, and initial self-reported fear levels, to make comparisons more reliable.

Procedure

• Initial assessment - Participants completed diagnostic scales to measure their fear of flying. They also watched a relaxation session to familiarise them with the setup.
• Pre-treatment measures - Three minutes before viewing a simulated flight video, researchers conducted an interview and took baseline measurements. The video was filmed from a subjective perspective, starting with packing a suitcase and ending with the plane landing.
• Treatment phase - After eight weeks, the treatment group underwent systematic desensitisation sessions. The control group did not receive this.
• Post-treatment assessment - After eight weeks, both groups returned to retake the questionnaires and view the simulated video again, with measurements repeated.

Measures used

The measures taken in the pre- and post-treatment assessments focused on both subjective self-reports and objective physiological indicators of anxiety.

Self-report scales

• Escala de Miedo a Volar (EMV) - This scale measures perceived anxiety in different flying situations, divided into three subscales:
  • Fear during the flight: Nine items covering situations from take-off to landing.
  • Fear of flight preliminaries: Eight items on pre-flight activities, such as going to the airport or getting a boarding card.
  • Fear without involvement: Four items on indirect exposure, like seeing an aeroplane on television.
• EPAV scales - These assess cognitive and physiological aspects:
  • Catastrophic thoughts: Nine items on disturbing fears, such as engines catching fire or wings falling off.
  • Physiological anxiety: Ten items on bodily responses, like increased heart rate or muscle tension, measured during the video simulation and adjusted against baseline levels (readings taken without the phobic stimulus).

Objective physiological measures

These included heart rate, palm temperature, and muscular tension, recorded to provide evidence beyond self-reports. Baseline measures were taken in a neutral state and compared to those during exposure to the flight video.

Key results and findings

The study collected data before and after the eight-week period.

Results showed clear differences between the groups:

• Control group - No significant changes occurred in self-reported fear levels or physiological measures, indicating that time alone did not reduce anxiety.
• Treatment group - Significant reductions were observed in self-reported fear (e.g., EMV scores dropped from 25.6 to 13.25) and physiological arousal (e.g., objective measures improved from 1.04 to 0.99). This applied to most participants, except two participants who showed minimal change.
• Group comparison - Pre-treatment scores were similar between groups, but post-treatment, the treatment group showed much greater improvement, suggesting the therapy's impact.

These findings demonstrate that systematic desensitisation led to measurable decreases in both subjective and objective indicators of fear.

Conclusions and evaluation of the study

The study concluded that systematic desensitisation is an effective treatment for fear of flying, as evidenced by the significant improvements in the treatment group compared to the control group. There were no initial differences between groups, strengthening the claim that the therapy caused the changes.